Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Wright denies the Arizona company's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and to alter or amend judgment in its patent suit against its Minnesota competitor, along with the competitor's motion for attorney fees. A jury's finding that the Arizona company did not prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence and that its patent claims were invalid was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The company also has not established that allegedly improper arguments changed the result of the trial, and while new non-infringement arguments introduced by the Minnesota competitor at trial should have been disclosed earlier, the Arizona company has not shown that they impacted the result enough to warrant a new trial. It also has not shown that jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were prejudicially erroneous. Claim construction disputes were resolved before trial and cannot justify a new trial. The Minnesota competitor, however, is not entitled to attorney fees since the Arizona company's case was not so weak, nor its litigation conduct so poor, as to warrant an attorney fees award, and "the relative resources available to each party weigh against rewarding Defendants for potentially overwhelming CellTrust in litigation."